Talk:Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei

Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 30, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
May 8, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 1, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that more than one million comments about Feng Jianmei's forced abortion had been registered within four days of family members uploading a picture of her dead child to Sina Weibo?

Current status: Delisted good article

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Abortion Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feminism Low‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bstephens393 (talk · contribs) 15:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to review this article, but it may take about a week or so to carefully scrutinize it. Bstephens393 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I look forward to your review. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead author on this article seems to be away, so I'll start trying to address some of these issues in the interim. I'll indicate below which concerns I've addressed Homunculus (duihua) 15:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BStephens, thanks for your patience on this. I'm not sure where Thaddeus has gone. I'll try to address the outstanding issues this week.Homunculus (duihua) 17:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've done some work on the remaining issues identified, but am going to clean it up quite a bit more. I'll be on the road for the next week or so, though, so please humor me a little further. The nominator is still MIA. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 14:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While there have been no further updates by Homunculus, there have been a spate of edits in the past week by Zujine (talk). Can these be checked to see whether they address the concerns? (I notice that there has been editing for length, which may address the "biggest problem" identified below.) If not, and if Zujine is not interesting in pursuing these concerns, it may be time to bring this nomination to an end, as it has been on-going for over two months, and the original nominator is no longer around. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main concerns below have been addressed. Or, at a minimum, we've made good strides. I'll go through everything more carefully now to see if there are any major outstanding issues. I also left a note with the reviewer yesterday to see if he/she feels the changes were adequate. But yes, I think in the coming days we ought to conclude this one way or another.Homunculus (duihua) 02:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Bstephens393

Overall the article is very thorough, well written and informative. As far as I can tell, it is factually accurate, uses plenty of good sources (though I noticed that the one most commonly cited is the state-owned Global Times—kind of interesting), and it seems neutral, complete, and stable. I do have some comments though, and I think once these are addressed it will be all set. Since this is my first GA review, I would also welcome second opinions.

In the introduction, consider restructuring the first sentence such that the article’s title appears in bold face as early as possible (for instance, “the forced abortion of Feng Jianmei occurred on June 2, 2012, while she was in her seventh month of pregnancy.”) Done

It would be nice if you could clarify where this occurred (city and province) early on in the introduction. Is it Ankang city that oversees her village? Done

“…increased criticism of the China's one-child policy” — remove “the” Done

“the case has also been cited as an example of how the internet is empowering ordinary people in a society perceived by outsiders as oppressive and known for government censorship”: well, the country is oppressive in terms of censorship. That’s not just a subjective, or outsider, perception. Maybe just something like “the case has also been cited as an example of how the internet is empowering ordinary people in an environment of government censorship.” Done

Looks like there are a couple wikilinks you could add, such as ‘European Parliament’ and ‘U.S. State Department’ (by the same token, some things probably don’t need links, like the US $ in the ‘background’ section). Done

”These violations are said to be especially prevalent in rural areas” — said by whom? This statement rings true to me, but it’s kind of vague as currently worded. Done

“Since 2001, abortion after the sixth month of pregnancy has been illegal in China.” — but I assume that, like the laws prohibiting coercive sterilizations and forced abortions, that this law is not always honored. Is that right? Done

The title for the section detailing the events in question (Feng Jianmei) is kind of vague. Could it be change to something more descriptive? Done

The quotes from Zhang Kai and Li Chengpeng are sourced to an article in the Economist, but I don’t see them in the article. Done

“Human rights organization 64Tianwang also posted the story...” — Looks like this links to a guy named Huang Qi, and maybe his Weibo name is 64Tianwang or something. Either way, seems he’s a human rights activist, not a human rights organization...? Done

Instead of ‘continuing impact,’ consider renaming the first half of the section ‘litigation,‘ and the second part renamed as “harassment of family members,” or something like that. Done

I would also recommend renaming “‘Editorials and commentary on case's effects’” to “international media coverage” or, alternately, “significance.” That section could also probably be summarized a little more to avoid WP:QUOTEFARM.

I looked at doing this, but I think it requires more thought than I can afford to give it this morning. The problem is that some of these apparently redundant sections seem to be an important part of the chronology of the event, so I don't want to classify them under 'significance' or 'aftermath' or some such thing. I'll return to it later. Homunculus (duihua) 14:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I think this issue has been addressed fairly well. It's still a bit of a quotefarm, but a good deal of the extraneous content has been removed or reduced, and other material paraphrased.Homunculus (duihua) 03:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem I see is that there’s quite a bit of repetition between sections in the latter part of the article, making it a good deal longer than it ought to be. For instance, there is a section titled “International reaction,” and another called “international action.” Similarly, there doesn’t seem to be a need for distinct sections on “Official response and calls to reform in China” and “Chinese government reaction.” It seems like a big job, but maybe related material like this could be consolidated and summarized a little better.

DoneIssue should be resolved now, but let me know if you feel there are outstanding problems. Homunculus (duihua) 03:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you think you'll be able to address these concerns, and I look forward to passing the article! Bstephens393 (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Length

I will be making some edits to reduce redundancy and overall length in the coming days. I will focus entirely on tightening it up rather than editing for content. I do not intend to make any changes to the information presented in this first effort. Just giving a heads up to anyone watching the article. —Zujine|talk 05:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. But since you know something about this overall topic area (women's rights, one child policy, etc), you shouldn't hesitate to edit for content too.Homunculus (duihua) 21:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I feel like the title is off, a title like Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei makes it seem like "Feng Jianmei" was aborted instead of the abortion being performed on her. In general titles like Death of X, Suicide of X, Murder of X or Killing of X mean that X was the subject which was "removed" (for a lack of a better word). I feel like it should be moved to somehting like Forced abortion performed on Feng Jianmei instead.★Trekker (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Jianmei forced abortion case would be more concise and still accurate, as used for example here: Chin, Josh (2012-06-15). "China Says It Suspended Officials in Forced-Abortion Case". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2021-08-16. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Large amounts of uncited text, including for quotes and statistics, thus failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.